📣 Announcement: Live Call-in Show coming soon: ua-cam.com/video/DbKh65TE_ws/v-deo.html Looking to get your message out there? Or just to have a chat and shoot the shit? Gonna be taking live call-ins during streams on both the UA-cam channel and the Twitch channel starting in the last week of March. Check out the above video for details
honestly I'm glad I don't live in an English speaking country. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to see Dennis Prager, or Benny Boi with their stupid rhetoric every time I want to watch anything communism/socialism related
I asked a similar question to this. That is, do we need to care about Feminism when undergoing a socialist project. Then I asked myself, well did sexism exist before capitalism? The answer was yes, thus meaning a socialist project needs Feminism (and to that extent other forms of anti oppression) in order to obtain a classless society.
Btw, if anyone feels skeptical ABT the different types of marriage in different modes of production (savagery, barbarism and civilization) know that it is well documented in many societies in the savage stage (such as tribes in the Amazon etc) that group marriages are very common, and in many societies in the barbarian stage a pairing marriage is also common, albeit the marriage itself is usually more institutionalised due to influence from civilized societies (for example, a Bedouin sheikh may often marry up to 4 women, while in other Arabic societies where the mode of production are more advanced the man will usually marry only one woman)
I love it every time I see a new Marxist Paul video uploaded! You have helped me immensely in my understanding and appreciation of Marxism! Kudos to you sir!
Are you putting Marx in the thumbnail of the the beginners episodes and lenin in the intermediate, i imagine Mao will be in the the thumbnail of the advanced episodes, because Maoism is the most advanced form Marxism.
would patriarchy be considered a portion of the “base” of capitalist society (like base, superstructure), because it is part of the mode, and relations of production? or is patriarchy separate from the base? sorry if this is a dumb question, it’s in good faith ❤
There is a big assumption made here about women in history before capitalism and that is that thinking women in the past are just like today merely doing reproductive labor and house work only and almost couldn't be allowed to do much else but care for kids and feed her husband. In reality this development of patriarchy is much more recent than you'd think. In feudal times, production is organized through farming communities and skilled trades men and women (yes they worked in trade too) with the feudal lords being the land owner these trades people and farmers worked in and had to pay rent to stay and follow the laws the Lord imposed. In these times things were much more decentralized than you think, especially in Europe's medieval period. Women in medieval Europe were real workers and producers in that society and were recongized as such. I'm talking about actual trades like tailoring, tanning, basket weavers (though sometimes it was a man's job in the case of medieval England), cattle and sheep herding, even butchery and mail smithing (there's an account of a woman smithing iron mail shirts for soldiers). Women literally were workers who directly sold their produce to the community. Hell it's likely you run to a woman running a market stall than a man. There were an incredible amount of evidence of women doing guild work. Women weren't just there to make kids and do house work for the husband, they were workers and producers for the whole community and society and independently made wealth for themselves. There's a few exceptions to this such as the case of feudal china which were a much more extreme patriarch compared to places like the middle east and Europe which were much more mild in comparison (but still obviously patriarchal). The idea of the house wife in Europe is a development in the much later stages of feudalism to the transition to capitalism by industrialisation. Before industrialisation, women were an intrinsic part of civil society and the production of goods and resources. Industrialisation actually sparked the removal of women from civil society and became much more submitted to their husbands than ever before. When combating patriarchy it has to be combated in it's current state but we should not confuse it as something that's stagnant and stood the same since the founding of human civilization. Patriarchy was much more different in other modes of production than it is now in capitalism.
You shouldn't overstate it. 'Housework' also involved surplus produce that was sold as well as feeding one's family or making things for them. There is no distinction. People were all self-employed or freelancers. So doing work at home is the same as working.
I think the fact of the matter is that even in the example you listed, women were still ultimately barred from many aspects of society that men simply werent as long as the men in question had the right resources, class and connections. Patriarchy is a stain on humanity that, while certainly varied in intensity and scope across many societies across history as a whole, still had it's genuine, real, serious harm in society even when you point out the opportunities that women did have from time to time. Its important to acknowledge the variety of patriarchy and when women were able to rise above their station and do great things, and its even encouraging at times! But we shouldnt act like in actuality, women didnt have it that bad whatsoever, though I dont think you meant to say that latter point by any means.
If you haven't read Gerda Lerner's Creation of Patriarchy I can recommend it highly (based on the quarter I've read so far lol) - traces some of the specific social, economic, and legal ways patriarchy was entrenched and also argues solidly that even though (cis) women's biology laid groundwork for their oppressing it was historical and social processes that created patriarchy, not biology
Hello, I wanted to leave you another comment. What works can allow me to understand the thesis that explains that the first and second world wars are the result of the crises of capitalist accumulation and the need to find new spaces for the expansion of capital . ¿ Couldn't you make a connection to what's happening right now with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How can we understand this phenomenon beyond the vulgar simplification of the media?
The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State was an excellent read. Ignoring his bizarre, anti-Irish racism, I think Engels was a much more engaging writer than Marx.
Probably gonna be the end of the month. You can catch regular live streams over on the Paul Connolly channel in the meantime: ua-cam.com/users/paulconnolly1916
Absolutely excellent video, comrade(s)!❤️🔥🎉💯🎉💫🚩 🎊👏✨👏💢👏💥💨🎊 Paul, you (& any comrades associated with this project) are doing incredibly important work, & I praise you to the high heavens! Keep up the good work, m8. ✌️♨️🍻📕🔖 🌟🧲⚙️Ⓜ️®️🅰️🏹🇪✊🛠️
Why did Agriculture bring out the idea of private property in people ? Couldn't it be a group effort ? I find this transformation of public to private property instantly with the advent of agriculture to be a stretch .
It wasn’t an instantaneous shift. The development of agriculture lead to the formation of surplus product. This meant that one group within society could own the land and appropriate some of the product from those who worked the land. Of course this didn’t happen as soon as agriculture developed, it was a slow shift.
The fact that "the fair sex" didn't age as well as Marx thought it would shows that we have indeed progressed. I feel he'd be proud. Though I don't think he'd be too keen on trans people, unfortunately. Well, maybe. It's quite possible he'd be supportive due to being more scientifically minded.
Communism and queer people are fine. There's no issue there. The problem with thinking he'd have an issue with trans people, is that you're then upholding the patriarchy. As socialists, we don't do that sort of thing.
By the way. Paul mentions in this video that oppression of LGBTQ people is due to patriarchy. Marx and Engels were against the patriarchy, therefore, they wouldn't have an issue with queer people. They knew about queer people in their time. Queer people have existed since humanity has existed. So...maybe you should change your way of thinking. Stop upholding the patriarchy.
I'm trying to understand why Mao is someone to emulate when between 40-80 million people were killed during the Cultural Revolution. Is the intent to look at other aspects of the Communist movement in China while omitting the historical outcome ? I don't understand.
@@Marxism_Today I don't have a source, because I haven't studied Communist history. Do you have a source that states few people died and the Cultural Revolution was in fact peaceful and successful?
So you're basing your opinion on nothing at all? Then why do you hold this belief? How could I possibly have a source showing that nobody died between the Cultural Revolution period of 1966 to 1976? Of course people died. People die every day of natural deaths. Your claim was that 40-80 million people not only died but were in fact KILLED. You've made this claim so the burden of proof falls upon you, not me.
@@Marxism_Today I wouldn't say nothing at all, there's no shortage of information on the internet about the alleged death toll of the Cultural Revolution, figures vary greatly. You've probably come across it during your research and discarded it already. Would it be preferable to say that millions, as apposed to 40-80M, were killed (unnaturally) during a militarized political conflict? Whether it was factually thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, which number is precise and acceptable to you? If you're position is that common knowledge about the Cultural Revolution is uninformed and misguided then the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the Cultural Revolution was actually a successful humanitarian movement, since you hold the contrarian viewpoint.
So you've got no proof whatsoever? No, I don't believe you have evidence to support the assertion that "millions were killed (unnaturally) during a militarised political conflict". In fact, the entire purpose of the cultural revolution was to non-violently confront the reactionary feudal elements that existed in Chinese society of the time. It wasn't a militarised conflict by any stretch of the imagination. The most militarised the Cultural Revolution got was when rogue groups of student Red Guards, not supported by Mao or the CPC, got their hands on stolen weapons and attacked each other. Over the entire decade, this led to no more than a couple of thousand deaths, but these deaths again were not supported by the CPC. Blaming Mao for these deaths is like blaming US presidents for what random serial killers in the US did. Mao himself never killed anyone, and in fact was noted for NOT killing political opponents (such as Deng Xiaoping) like Stalin had done in Soviet Russia. As for this childish Prager U-fed narrative about Mao killing tens of millions of people, study: mronline.org/2006/09/21/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/ (feel free to check the sources of this, fact check, see how reliable the website is, etc.)
Paul, I recommend reading some actual history and anthropology before making such sweeping videos. Engels’s theory is very outdated by modern standards
It's not outdated at all. In fact, Engels' theory has been show more and more correct as time has passed with anthropologists like Eleanor Burke Leacock and Christine Ward Gailey proving its validity.
@@Marxism_Today Private property undoubtedly plays a huge role in the oppression of women. I'm only addressing the linearity of history and this sort of "natural state" of human society that's being assumed here. Simone de Beauvoir, drawing from the findings of Claude Levi-Strauss, would point to the fact that women have been treated as the lesser sex, never actually enjoying the role as the "essential" subject, but always as the potential Other. The examples of worshiping fertility and women goddesses, which gave women a better position in society, only served as the mystical veneer that stood in the way of unfettered oppression. Then again, borrowing from Gregory Bateson’s theory of “complementary schismogenesis”, David Graeber's and David Wengrow's book, "The dawn of everything", would also point to the fact that human societies throughout history have been capable of flexibly evaluating the structures and aspects they wish to accommodate to themselves or distance from, and so we find countless examples of different arrangements.
What is it with postmodernists and attempting to make their arguments as indecipherable as possible to the average reader? "The "essential" subject", "the potential Other", "complementary schismogenesis". It's as if your arguments are so weak and inconsequential - providing nothing that actually helps the oppressed achieve emancipation - that they have to be buried under a mountain of linguistic panache in an attempt to dazzle, bewilder, and intimidate your opponent. It's cowardly bourgeois academic elitism. You're not in the academy here. Speak plainly or don't speak at all.
@@Marxism_Today XD lol, apologies. Didn’t attempt to “intimidate” anyone with “indecipherable postmodernist arguments” - just wanted to give a brief primer to alternative approaches since it’s a youtube comment after all. No bad faith here. The first two terms refer to Hegel’s theory of master-slave-dialectic, also essential to Marx’s theory of alienation (and so I thought people would be familiar with it), and it concerns the basic processes of self-conciousness and the hierarchical relations arising from such processes: in order for person to make sense of oneself as a thinking subject with agency, the person must orient themself to the world as if it was an object to wich to act on. This creates an arrangement in which usually either of the parties is made an essential subject (man, ruling class, core etc.) and the other is cast as the object (woman, lower class, periphery…). Complementary (or cultural) schismogenesis refers to a process in which people and groups come to define themselves through differentiation from others, for example leftist vs. rightists, conservatives vs. liberals, east vs. west and so on.
And tell me, how does any of this help anyone achieve emancipation? What's the point, beyond intellectual masturbation and pointless navel-gazing? As for "No bad faith here", I suggest you re-read your original comment, which incredibly condescendingly suggests that I have never studied history or anthropology before.
I’m new to socialism so have a question or you can say confusion. I agree that private property is the root cause of suppression of women and for many unfortunate men too. What I understood is that men, for the sake of continued ownership of private property after their death, wanted progeny who will carry forward the right to property. And of course you can’t have progenies if you don’t have women. Fair point. My question or confusion is, that in all the three stages you described, aren’t the men who carried the heavy load of a tribe, group, or society? If women were left to fend for themselves in a much more disorganized world inflicted with diseases and other mishaps, then the possibility of their chances of surviving, without men’s intervention, is slim. I don’t think so that women would have been able to build infrastructure like roads, tunnels, homes, toilets by sheer physical force and planning as men did. Your video can’t get this notion out of my head that if women didn’t have the protection and sustenance from men, then the human race wouldn’t have survived for this long. In my opinion, which is open to change, human race is able to become 7 billion and counting, which is deadly for the planet, is also because of patriarchy. What’s your take on that?
My take on it is that your comment reeks of patriarchial brainwashing and effectively dumbs down and degrades women entirely. Women arent helpless damsels who need men to do everything for them or to protect them. Women only seem like they needed men because certain men in society were able to brainwash the rest into acting like women were inferiors who needed to be coddled and protected, and "shown their place". Women could absolutely have built and labored to build things, but when men bar them from doing these things and learning these things, of course women arent gonna have the knowledge or skill to do so. You barred them from learning in the first place, what did you think was gonna happen? Also, I'm sick of the argument that "losing one woman is worse" and "but muh one man a hundred women" and all that other nonsense. First off, if one man beds dozens of women, thats gonna mess up the gene pool and not to mention men's mental health and end up with women being used as breeding chattle (as they damn near were). Second, many men desire monogomy, both back then and to this day. Third, losing all of your men can be just as terrible too! In fact, there are stories from WW1 and/or WW2 detailing how, because so many men in any given town who got sent off to war were killed, the women in these more unfortunate towns had barely any prospects by the time the war ended. The reason you believe in these lies is because the patriarchy programmed and burned these lies into your skull. I dont know how much changing you did over the 11 months since youve posted this comment, but I can only hope you've been deprogrammed of this utterly misogynistic maelstrom thats been floating around in your head.
📣 Announcement: Live Call-in Show coming soon: ua-cam.com/video/DbKh65TE_ws/v-deo.html
Looking to get your message out there? Or just to have a chat and shoot the shit? Gonna be taking live call-ins during streams on both the UA-cam channel and the Twitch channel starting in the last week of March. Check out the above video for details
Awesome video !
Thanks, Paul
Prager u is really throwing bread at communist videos. I've had a Prager u ad on the last 5+ leftwing videos I've watched
Kinda based that they're giving us all that ad money ngl lol
honestly I'm glad I don't live in an English speaking country. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to see Dennis Prager, or Benny Boi with their stupid rhetoric every time I want to watch anything communism/socialism related
Yeah it's annoying watching their stupid a*** ads but the ad money does sweeten the whole process a bit.
Me too, I just troll the comments trying to trigger them all. 😈
Maybe the people at PragerU secretly know that Socialism is based, but they're too afraid to admit it?
Those recommendations are spot on! Thanks Paul. Down with patriarchy, down with class society!
Down with fascism. Down with Corporate greed.
✊ If your socialism isn't intersectional, is it even socialism?
Class oppression is more important but other oppression is same important and need to work together
I asked a similar question to this. That is, do we need to care about Feminism when undergoing a socialist project. Then I asked myself, well did sexism exist before capitalism? The answer was yes, thus meaning a socialist project needs Feminism (and to that extent other forms of anti oppression) in order to obtain a classless society.
What is it then, if not socialism?
@@makhnothecossack4948
Well I suppose it wouldn't be socialism then. 🤷🏾♂️
The day always gets good when Paul uploads a video
I prefer Marxist Feminism to your usual Girl Boss stuff
Btw, if anyone feels skeptical ABT the different types of marriage in different modes of production (savagery, barbarism and civilization) know that it is well documented in many societies in the savage stage (such as tribes in the Amazon etc) that group marriages are very common, and in many societies in the barbarian stage a pairing marriage is also common, albeit the marriage itself is usually more institutionalised due to influence from civilized societies (for example, a Bedouin sheikh may often marry up to 4 women, while in other Arabic societies where the mode of production are more advanced the man will usually marry only one woman)
Mashallah daddy Marxist Paul has uploaded
@@jefrreyjeffery2192 mashallah
@@Naheed_Ahmed14 مَا شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ
Eloquently put.
Can you do a video covering the different modes of production throughout history?
Marxist Daddy paul has uploaded
I've been wondering about this since I read that the Soviet Union legalised abortion in the 1920s.
Lavender and reds is an interesting book in a similar vein
Hey Paul, the article “On Standards of Feminist Conduct” doesn’t seem to be working. Not sure if it got taken down recently or if it’s just on my end.
Huh. It's not working on my end either. Hopefully it'll be back up soon. Very important article
Fantastic coverage and the historical context is a fascinating look into our past that I simply wasn't aware of. Thankyou!
I love it every time I see a new Marxist Paul video uploaded! You have helped me immensely in my understanding and appreciation of Marxism! Kudos to you sir!
Thank you, Comrade.
Are you putting Marx in the thumbnail of the the beginners episodes and lenin in the intermediate, i imagine Mao will be in the the thumbnail of the advanced episodes, because Maoism is the most advanced form Marxism.
Bingo
The advanced episodes should have the greatest living Marxist, Gorbachev, in the thumbnails.
贡萨罗也不能忘，说最高级也不对，只能说是目前对马克思主义发展的最高形式
Great video as always comrade
Great video
would patriarchy be considered a portion of the “base” of capitalist society (like base, superstructure), because it is part of the mode, and relations of production? or is patriarchy separate from the base? sorry if this is a dumb question, it’s in good faith ❤
There is a big assumption made here about women in history before capitalism and that is that thinking women in the past are just like today merely doing reproductive labor and house work only and almost couldn't be allowed to do much else but care for kids and feed her husband.
In reality this development of patriarchy is much more recent than you'd think. In feudal times, production is organized through farming communities and skilled trades men and women (yes they worked in trade too) with the feudal lords being the land owner these trades people and farmers worked in and had to pay rent to stay and follow the laws the Lord imposed. In these times things were much more decentralized than you think, especially in Europe's medieval period. Women in medieval Europe were real workers and producers in that society and were recongized as such. I'm talking about actual trades like tailoring, tanning, basket weavers (though sometimes it was a man's job in the case of medieval England), cattle and sheep herding, even butchery and mail smithing (there's an account of a woman smithing iron mail shirts for soldiers). Women literally were workers who directly sold their produce to the community. Hell it's likely you run to a woman running a market stall than a man. There were an incredible amount of evidence of women doing guild work. Women weren't just there to make kids and do house work for the husband, they were workers and producers for the whole community and society and independently made wealth for themselves. There's a few exceptions to this such as the case of feudal china which were a much more extreme patriarch compared to places like the middle east and Europe which were much more mild in comparison (but still obviously patriarchal).
The idea of the house wife in Europe is a development in the much later stages of feudalism to the transition to capitalism by industrialisation. Before industrialisation, women were an intrinsic part of civil society and the production of goods and resources. Industrialisation actually sparked the removal of women from civil society and became much more submitted to their husbands than ever before.
When combating patriarchy it has to be combated in it's current state but we should not confuse it as something that's stagnant and stood the same since the founding of human civilization. Patriarchy was much more different in other modes of production than it is now in capitalism.
You shouldn't overstate it.
'Housework' also involved surplus produce that was sold as well as feeding one's family or making things for them. There is no distinction. People were all self-employed or freelancers. So doing work at home is the same as working.
I think the fact of the matter is that even in the example you listed, women were still ultimately barred from many aspects of society that men simply werent as long as the men in question had the right resources, class and connections.
Patriarchy is a stain on humanity that, while certainly varied in intensity and scope across many societies across history as a whole, still had it's genuine, real, serious harm in society even when you point out the opportunities that women did have from time to time.
Its important to acknowledge the variety of patriarchy and when women were able to rise above their station and do great things, and its even encouraging at times! But we shouldnt act like in actuality, women didnt have it that bad whatsoever, though I dont think you meant to say that latter point by any means.
If you haven't read Gerda Lerner's Creation of Patriarchy I can recommend it highly (based on the quarter I've read so far lol) - traces some of the specific social, economic, and legal ways patriarchy was entrenched and also argues solidly that even though (cis) women's biology laid groundwork for their oppressing it was historical and social processes that created patriarchy, not biology
Excellent explanation
Hello, I wanted to leave you another comment.
What works can allow me to understand the thesis that explains that the first and second world wars are the result of the crises of capitalist accumulation and the need to find new spaces for the expansion of capital . ¿ Couldn't you make a connection to what's happening right now with the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
How can we understand this phenomenon beyond the vulgar simplification of the media?
What do you think if I translate your videos into Arabic?
The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State was an excellent read. Ignoring his bizarre, anti-Irish racism, I think Engels was a much more engaging writer than Marx.
What, Engels was racist?
See also the Origins of Male Dominance from What is Politics? for some further insight on origins of patriarchy.
When’s your next video dropping?
Probably gonna be the end of the month. You can catch regular live streams over on the Paul Connolly channel in the meantime: ua-cam.com/users/paulconnolly1916
great vid paul
Sent this vid to all of the important women in my life. No war but class war.
Awesome video!
Your channel has been a well of education, shall be patroning ya. Good to know there's at east one effin republican thats still socialist.
If this is Socialism, I welcome it!
Excellent. Subbed
2:55 How to get rid of "The Basis of Women's Oppression"? Communism! Nice xD
♥️☭
f̷̩̜͚̤͇͔̿̋̓̐͜͝͝e̷̞͍̲̜̔̃́͝e̷̠̭͎̽̂̾̕d̷̛͈͓͉̮̦͔̼͈̳͔͙͊͌̌̊̔̏̊͂̔̚̚t̸̢̛̤̰̯͕͊̀̈́̈͛́̈̒̓͝͝h̴͖̠̱̝̣̼̩͕̥̭̜͊̍͗̋͛̾͋̌̍̒̓̍͝ę̴̛̯̮̰͖̝͎̼͎͙̼̻̻̺̈́͒̈́͐͂̔͒͘͠â̵̬̰͍̾̉ĺ̸̞͌̐͐̉̑̐̓͒̎̊̈͘͝g̸̛̩̥͌͋̌̊̑̌̈̓͝õ̴̡̯̥͔͓̙̪͓̫͓̞̞̣̜͓̅̀̑̉̒̋̇̄̐̋͝r̸̨̤̤̔̆̍͌̾̈́͆́̚͜į̶̨͓̗͚͚̳͉͕͚̝̪̳͍̲͌̈̊͗͛̎͌̌͒̏̒͋͘͝t̶̨̘͕̂̽̀̉͐̈́̎͌̌̿́̆̿h̴̡̥̺̤̳̘̳̜͈̝̤̱̾̐̽m̷͉͊̾̊̽̅́͋͋̍̂̋́̚̕͘
Next one proletarian morality?
Absolutely excellent video, comrade(s)!❤️🔥🎉💯🎉💫🚩
🎊👏✨👏💢👏💥💨🎊
Paul, you (& any comrades associated with this project) are doing incredibly important work, & I praise you to the high heavens! Keep up the good work, m8.
✌️♨️🍻📕🔖
🌟🧲⚙️Ⓜ️®️🅰️🏹🇪✊🛠️
Why did Agriculture bring out the idea of private property in people ?
Couldn't it be a group effort ?
I find this transformation of public to private property instantly with the advent of agriculture to be a stretch .
It wasn’t an instantaneous shift. The development of agriculture lead to the formation of surplus product. This meant that one group within society could own the land and appropriate some of the product from those who worked the land. Of course this didn’t happen as soon as agriculture developed, it was a slow shift.
@@arthurmorgan1550 That sounds like an inevitability
The fact that "the fair sex" didn't age as well as Marx thought it would shows that we have indeed progressed. I feel he'd be proud. Though I don't think he'd be too keen on trans people, unfortunately. Well, maybe. It's quite possible he'd be supportive due to being more scientifically minded.
Communism and queer people are fine. There's no issue there. The problem with thinking he'd have an issue with trans people, is that you're then upholding the patriarchy. As socialists, we don't do that sort of thing.
By the way. Paul mentions in this video that oppression of LGBTQ people is due to patriarchy. Marx and Engels were against the patriarchy, therefore, they wouldn't have an issue with queer people. They knew about queer people in their time. Queer people have existed since humanity has existed. So...maybe you should change your way of thinking. Stop upholding the patriarchy.
Didn’t Marx die in 1883
Karl Marx is god.
I'm trying to understand why Mao is someone to emulate when between 40-80 million people were killed during the Cultural Revolution. Is the intent to look at other aspects of the Communist movement in China while omitting the historical outcome ? I don't understand.
40-80 million people killed. That's a new one. Source, let's go.
@@Marxism_Today I don't have a source, because I haven't studied Communist history. Do you have a source that states few people died and the Cultural Revolution was in fact peaceful and successful?
So you're basing your opinion on nothing at all? Then why do you hold this belief?
How could I possibly have a source showing that nobody died between the Cultural Revolution period of 1966 to 1976? Of course people died. People die every day of natural deaths.
Your claim was that 40-80 million people not only died but were in fact KILLED. You've made this claim so the burden of proof falls upon you, not me.
@@Marxism_Today I wouldn't say nothing at all, there's no shortage of information on the internet about the alleged death toll of the Cultural Revolution, figures vary greatly. You've probably come across it during your research and discarded it already. Would it be preferable to say that millions, as apposed to 40-80M, were killed (unnaturally) during a militarized political conflict? Whether it was factually thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, which number is precise and acceptable to you? If you're position is that common knowledge about the Cultural Revolution is uninformed and misguided then the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the Cultural Revolution was actually a successful humanitarian movement, since you hold the contrarian viewpoint.
So you've got no proof whatsoever?
No, I don't believe you have evidence to support the assertion that "millions were killed (unnaturally) during a militarised political conflict".
In fact, the entire purpose of the cultural revolution was to non-violently confront the reactionary feudal elements that existed in Chinese society of the time. It wasn't a militarised conflict by any stretch of the imagination.
The most militarised the Cultural Revolution got was when rogue groups of student Red Guards, not supported by Mao or the CPC, got their hands on stolen weapons and attacked each other.
Over the entire decade, this led to no more than a couple of thousand deaths, but these deaths again were not supported by the CPC. Blaming Mao for these deaths is like blaming US presidents for what random serial killers in the US did.
Mao himself never killed anyone, and in fact was noted for NOT killing political opponents (such as Deng Xiaoping) like Stalin had done in Soviet Russia.
As for this childish Prager U-fed narrative about Mao killing tens of millions of people, study: mronline.org/2006/09/21/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/
(feel free to check the sources of this, fact check, see how reliable the website is, etc.)
This video did not convince me. There is no clear connection between the lgbtq+ stuff and the womens issue.
There is
Paul, I recommend reading some actual history and anthropology before making such sweeping videos. Engels’s theory is very outdated by modern standards
It's not outdated at all. In fact, Engels' theory has been show more and more correct as time has passed with anthropologists like Eleanor Burke Leacock and Christine Ward Gailey proving its validity.
@@Marxism_Today Private property undoubtedly plays a huge role in the oppression of women. I'm only addressing the linearity of history and this sort of "natural state" of human society that's being assumed here. Simone de Beauvoir, drawing from the findings of Claude Levi-Strauss, would point to the fact that women have been treated as the lesser sex, never actually enjoying the role as the "essential" subject, but always as the potential Other. The examples of worshiping fertility and women goddesses, which gave women a better position in society, only served as the mystical veneer that stood in the way of unfettered oppression. Then again, borrowing from Gregory Bateson’s theory of “complementary schismogenesis”, David Graeber's and David Wengrow's book, "The dawn of everything", would also point to the fact that human societies throughout history have been capable of flexibly evaluating the structures and aspects they wish to accommodate to themselves or distance from, and so we find countless examples of different arrangements.
What is it with postmodernists and attempting to make their arguments as indecipherable as possible to the average reader?
"The "essential" subject", "the potential Other", "complementary schismogenesis".
It's as if your arguments are so weak and inconsequential - providing nothing that actually helps the oppressed achieve emancipation - that they have to be buried under a mountain of linguistic panache in an attempt to dazzle, bewilder, and intimidate your opponent.
It's cowardly bourgeois academic elitism.
You're not in the academy here. Speak plainly or don't speak at all.
@@Marxism_Today XD lol, apologies. Didn’t attempt to “intimidate” anyone with “indecipherable postmodernist arguments” - just wanted to give a brief primer to alternative approaches since it’s a youtube comment after all. No bad faith here.
The first two terms refer to Hegel’s theory of master-slave-dialectic, also essential to Marx’s theory of alienation (and so I thought people would be familiar with it), and it concerns the basic processes of self-conciousness and the hierarchical relations arising from such processes: in order for person to make sense of oneself as a thinking subject with agency, the person must orient themself to the world as if it was an object to wich to act on. This creates an arrangement in which usually either of the parties is made an essential subject (man, ruling class, core etc.) and the other is cast as the object (woman, lower class, periphery…).
Complementary (or cultural) schismogenesis refers to a process in which people and groups come to define themselves through differentiation from others, for example leftist vs. rightists, conservatives vs. liberals, east vs. west and so on.
And tell me, how does any of this help anyone achieve emancipation? What's the point, beyond intellectual masturbation and pointless navel-gazing?
As for "No bad faith here", I suggest you re-read your original comment, which incredibly condescendingly suggests that I have never studied history or anthropology before.
I’m new to socialism so have a question or you can say confusion.
I agree that private property is the root cause of suppression of women and for many unfortunate men too.
What I understood is that men, for the sake of continued ownership of private property after their death, wanted progeny who will carry forward the right to property. And of course you can’t have progenies if you don’t have women. Fair point.
My question or confusion is, that in all the three stages you described, aren’t the men who carried the heavy load of a tribe, group, or society?
If women were left to fend for themselves in a much more disorganized world inflicted with diseases and other mishaps, then the possibility of their chances of surviving, without men’s intervention, is slim.
I don’t think so that women would have been able to build infrastructure like roads, tunnels, homes, toilets by sheer physical force and planning as men did.
Your video can’t get this notion out of my head that if women didn’t have the protection and sustenance from men, then the human race wouldn’t have survived for this long.
In my opinion, which is open to change, human race is able to become 7 billion and counting, which is deadly for the planet, is also because of patriarchy.
What’s your take on that?
My take on it is that your comment reeks of patriarchial brainwashing and effectively dumbs down and degrades women entirely.
Women arent helpless damsels who need men to do everything for them or to protect them. Women only seem like they needed men because certain men in society were able to brainwash the rest into acting like women were inferiors who needed to be coddled and protected, and "shown their place".
Women could absolutely have built and labored to build things, but when men bar them from doing these things and learning these things, of course women arent gonna have the knowledge or skill to do so. You barred them from learning in the first place, what did you think was gonna happen?
Also, I'm sick of the argument that "losing one woman is worse" and "but muh one man a hundred women" and all that other nonsense. First off, if one man beds dozens of women, thats gonna mess up the gene pool and not to mention men's mental health and end up with women being used as breeding chattle (as they damn near were). Second, many men desire monogomy, both back then and to this day. Third, losing all of your men can be just as terrible too! In fact, there are stories from WW1 and/or WW2 detailing how, because so many men in any given town who got sent off to war were killed, the women in these more unfortunate towns had barely any prospects by the time the war ended.
The reason you believe in these lies is because the patriarchy programmed and burned these lies into your skull. I dont know how much changing you did over the 11 months since youve posted this comment, but I can only hope you've been deprogrammed of this utterly misogynistic maelstrom thats been floating around in your head.